From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "O'driscoll, Tim" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] VM Power Management Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:54:16 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA54C4BD63@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1412003903-9061-1-git-send-email-alan.carew@intel.com> <3349663.LNtcecTXb3@xps13> <0E29434AEE0C3A4180987AB476A6F6306D2811AD@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> <1804867.TWdiCQc2JQ@xps13> <0E29434AEE0C3A4180987AB476A6F6306D28E7DF@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" To: "Carew, Alan" , Thomas Monjalon Return-path: In-Reply-To: <0E29434AEE0C3A4180987AB476A6F6306D28E7DF-kPTMFJFq+rHjxeytcECX8bfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" > From: Carew, Alan >=20 > > Did you make any progress in Qemu/KVM community? > > We need to be sync'ed up with them to be sure we share the same goal. > > I want also to avoid using a solution which doesn't fit with their plan= . > > Remember that we already had this problem with ivshmem which was > > planned to be dropped. > > . . . >=20 > Unfortunately, I have not yet received any feedback: > http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2014-11/msg01103.html Just to add to what Alan said above, this capability does not exist in qemu= at the moment, and based on there having been no feedback on the qemu mail= ing list so far, I think it's reasonable to assume that it will not be impl= emented in the immediate future. The VM Power Management feature has also b= een designed to allow easy migration to a qemu-based solution when this is = supported in future. Therefore, I'd be in favour of accepting this feature = into DPDK now. It's true that the implementation is a work-around, but there have been sim= ilar cases in DPDK in the past. One recent example that comes to mind is us= erspace vhost. The original implementation could also be considered a work-= around, but it met the needs of many in the community. Now, with support fo= r vhost-user in qemu 2.1, that implementation is being improved. I'd see VM= Power Management following a similar path when this capability is supporte= d in qemu. Tim